The thing about randomness is that it is defined by unpredictabilty. Let's assume there is an infinite, and random, stream of dice. In that infinite random stream, there is contained an infinite stream of 1s. So it is entirely possible to roll nothing but 1s for your entire life.

Proof: If the longest stream of 1s is only 564 1s long, then we know that the 565th roll is not a 1, and it is therefore not random.

DoomYoshi wrote:The thing about randomness is that it is defined by unpredictabilty. Let's assume there is an infinite, and random, stream of dice. In that infinite random stream, there is contained an infinite stream of 1s. So it is entirely possible to roll nothing but 1s for your entire life.

Proof: If the longest stream of 1s is only 564 1s long, then we know that the 565th roll is not a 1, and it is therefore not random.

Indeed, its' possible. But what's more likely: rolling 1's for the rest of your life in a random situation or the existence of a rigged or not-random system?

DoomYoshi wrote:The thing about randomness is that it is defined by unpredictabilty. Let's assume there is an infinite, and random, stream of dice. In that infinite random stream, there is contained an infinite stream of 1s. So it is entirely possible to roll nothing but 1s for your entire life.

Proof: If the longest stream of 1s is only 564 1s long, then we know that the 565th roll is not a 1, and it is therefore not random.

Indeed, its' possible. But what's more likely: rolling 1's for the rest of your life in a random situation or the existence of a rigged or not-random system?

That's not an accurate description of the situation here. CC and its dice mechanism together are not random, in that one can control one's probability of winning a game by playing better--given the constraints of a random setting (e.g. the dice). In other words, although the dice are random, the player's decisions and capabilities are not random, so this is neither a "random situation" nor a "rigged or not-random system." Your dichotomy falls apart like the fortresses of so many ignoble kings.

On Dice Complainers: A Never Ending Trial of Self-Perceived TribulationsWhen people condemn the system as 'rigged', many of them may be overlooking the fact that their strategy and their decisions were suboptimal. And, it seems that a large group of people are almost always more likely to blame one's environment (the 'rigged' dice system) instead of blaming oneself for poor decision-making. Of course, the blame they make might not be 100% on dice and 0% on one's decisions, but it seems that of that large group of dice complainers, they attribute too little blame on themselves. A further problem is their confirmation bias, which has been dealt with numerous times by the valid criticizers like natty dread.

Besides, it also psychologically rewarding to vent one's frustration while filtering out valid criticism in order to receive the desired sympathy from other dice complainers. Many dice complainers could be tapping themselves into this "positive" feedback loop with its negative unintended consequences.

Nonetheless, I look forward to the day when more and more people control for their cognitive bias, assess the situation from a more objective viewpoint, and consequentially make the necessary changes to improve themselves and others.

Funkyterrance wrote:Indeed, its' possible. But what's more likely: rolling 1's for the rest of your life in a random situation or the existence of a rigged or not-random system?

That's not an accurate description of the situation here. CC and its dice mechanism together are not random, in that one can control one's probability of winning a game by playing better--given the constraints of a random setting (e.g. the dice). In other words, although the dice are random, the player's decisions and capabilities are not random, so this is neither a "random situation" nor a "rigged or not-random system." Your dichotomy falls apart like the fortresses of so many ignoble kings.

I was only following Yoshi's train of thought here and asking him a question comparing his extreme scenario to mine and I believe showing that his was certainly more far fetched and therefore useless as a counter. I never claimed it was a "this or that" scenario, however. It could very well be somewhere in-between.

BigBallinStalin wrote:On Dice Complainers: A Never Ending Trial of Self-Perceived TribulationsWhen people condemn the system as 'rigged', many of them may be overlooking the fact that their strategy and their decisions were suboptimal. And, it seems that a large group of people are almost always more likely to blame one's environment (the 'rigged' dice system) instead of blaming oneself for poor decision-making. Of course, the blame they make might not be 100% on dice and 0% on one's decisions, but it seems that of that large group of dice complainers, they attribute too little blame on themselves. A further problem is their confirmation bias, which has been dealt with numerous times by the valid criticizers like natty dread.

Besides, it also psychologically rewarding to vent one's frustration while filtering out valid criticism in order to receive the desired sympathy from other dice complainers. Many dice complainers could be tapping themselves into this "positive" feedback loop with its negative unintended consequences.

Nonetheless, I look forward to the day when more and more people control for their cognitive bias, assess the situation from a more objective viewpoint, and consequentially make the necessary changes to improve themselves and others.

Again, while our ever so keen impressions of what is actually going on with regard to dice complainers may suggest to us otherwise, I am arguing reasonable doubt. I am arguing that supposition is not strong enough evidence to consistently treat dice complainers much like the lowliest mental patient and we the presiding doctors.

Last edited by Funkyterrance on Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SaMejoHn wrote:Why doesn't everyone just do what I do and talk it over with their therapist? But personally the more games I play the worse my dice. As far as the dice goes, my only complaint is the patterns/streak of misfortune. How can something advertised as random be consistently bad for a while and then consistently good for a while? That is the only part that gets to me . I read so much here about selective memory and all that great stuff. but I never forget the times my dice came through big time in clutch. In fact, if i didn't try to forget all the moments of bad dice i wouldnt even be on this site. but that's just me. so is that really as big a factor as others posit it to be?

Here we have an example of the classic long term dice victim. He has been berated so badly by his fellow players that he has actually started to believe he is to blame for his misfortune. How delicious this must be for his torturer, if he/she does indeed exist.

lol no one has berated me...this is first time im posting about dice. and only did so because i have more of a question than a complaint...(which was answered.) i dont approve of being labeled as "long term dice victim"

Funkyterrance wrote:Here we have an example of the classic long term dice victim. He has been berated so badly by his fellow players that he has actually started to believe he is to blame for his misfortune. How delicious this must be for his torturer, if he/she does indeed exist.

lol no one has berated me...this is first time im posting about dice. and only did so because i have more of a question than a complaint...(which was answered.) i dont approve of being labeled as "long term dice victim"

It might be in your best interest to accept this title as being a major you would have to be a pretty decent player to overcome this affliction.

Funkyterrance wrote:Here we have an example of the classic long term dice victim. He has been berated so badly by his fellow players that he has actually started to believe he is to blame for his misfortune. How delicious this must be for his torturer, if he/she does indeed exist.

lol no one has berated me...this is first time im posting about dice. and only did so because i have more of a question than a complaint...(which was answered.) i dont approve of being labeled as "long term dice victim"

It might be in your best interest to accept this title as being a major you would have to be a pretty decent player to overcome this affliction.

lol hmmm... you are right. EVERYDAY MY DICE IS SHIT. Everyone else has SOOO much better dice than me. Im here now because im afraid to take turns.. f*ck CC AND THE BULLSHIT DICE.

I am pissed off about how random the dice are. This is bullshit. Some times I get good dice and sometimes I get bad dice.What the f*ck is up with that?.....Some times my opponents get good dice and sometimes they get bad dice? I don't understand this bullshit!....

generalhead wrote:I am pissed off about how random the dice are. This is bullshit. Some times I get good dice and sometimes I get bad dice.What the f*ck is up with that?.....Some times my opponents get good dice and sometimes they get bad dice? I don't understand this bullshit!....

I'll have to say I've never encountered a dice complainer complaining about the randomness itself. I'm afraid you are beyond my area of expertise, generalhead. I do however have the number of a guy across town who specializes in insanity pleas.

generalhead wrote:I am pissed off about how random the dice are. This is bullshit. Some times I get good dice and sometimes I get bad dice.What the f*ck is up with that?.....Some times my opponents get good dice and sometimes they get bad dice? I don't understand this bullshit!....

DoomYoshi wrote:The thing about randomness is that it is defined by unpredictabilty. Let's assume there is an infinite, and random, stream of dice. In that infinite random stream, there is contained an infinite stream of 1s. So it is entirely possible to roll nothing but 1s for your entire life.

Proof: If the longest stream of 1s is only 564 1s long, then we know that the 565th roll is not a 1, and it is therefore not random.

Indeed, its' possible. But what's more likely: rolling 1's for the rest of your life in a random situation or the existence of a rigged or not-random system?

I believe the question depends entirely if you "believe" in randomness. If you do believe in randomness, then the possibility of such a scenario appearing in a sort of nested randomness could be entirely possible. Maybe even probable.

lost the rabbits foot ... and the horseshoe fell out of my ass ... also forgot to sacrifice 13 virgins for the dice gods before every turn ... gotta love the unofficial Cc rules for getting decent dice

donkeymile wrote:lost the rabbits foot ... and the horseshoe fell out of my ass ... also forgot to sacrifice 13 virgins for the dice gods before every turn ... gotta love the unofficial Cc rules for getting decent dice

13 virgins...lol where im from thats a tall order! but anyways, does anyone else want this dilemma...well for starters my low expectation of dice makes me unable to decide whether to commit to the auto-assault or the regular assault. Assuming i lose in both scenarios, then the auto-assault is one big fatal punch whereas the regular assault button is continuous jabs until i finally succumb to dice failure. I cant decide which is more humane. What do you guys think?

Well, there is a difference between what most players consider random and what the physics of the world considers random (Otherwise known as actually random, regardless of whether the randomness has been an asshole to anyone):Physics/Math/Mother Nature/The Universe considers something to be truly random when all things have an equal chance of being selected in the process. As long as that condition is fulfilled, it doesn't give a metric f**kton about what the actual results are. It only cares whether the process is random or not, and so, if you get sixty-two 1's in a row, as long as the process is random, those results are "random".However, players like you or I cannot understand, nor observe, nor visualize the process of choosing a random number. Therefore, we can only base our observations on the results we get, and we must recognize that what we use to determine randomness and what true randomness is are not the same two things, and, at times, what seems to not be random is actually random, however counter-intuitive. If we get the aforementioned sixty-two 1's in a row, we cannot see the process of choosing those sixty-two 1's, and therefore don't know if it's random or not, and it could be and could be not, but we can't just say "It's rigged" or "There may exist a bias somewhere in the process" until we observe the process for ourselves. Of course, about 0 people here want to drive over to random.org's HQ and hear atmospheric noise for days on end, so we can only trust that it's random. And so far, due to the LLN (Law of Large Numbers), it has been shown to most likely be random.

Just_essence wrote:Well, there is a difference between what most players consider random and what the physics of the world considers random (Otherwise known as actually random, regardless of whether the randomness has been an asshole to anyone):Physics/Math/Mother Nature/The Universe considers something to be truly random when all things have an equal chance of being selected in the process. As long as that condition is fulfilled, it doesn't give a metric f**kton about what the actual results are. It only cares whether the process is random or not, and so, if you get sixty-two 1's in a row, as long as the process is random, those results are "random".However, players like you or I cannot understand, nor observe, nor visualize the process of choosing a random number. Therefore, we can only base our observations on the results we get, and we must recognize that what we use to determine randomness and what true randomness is are not the same two things, and, at times, what seems to not be random is actually random, however counter-intuitive. If we get the aforementioned sixty-two 1's in a row, we cannot see the process of choosing those sixty-two 1's, and therefore don't know if it's random or not, and it could be and could be not, but we can't just say "It's rigged" or "There may exist a bias somewhere in the process" until we observe the process for ourselves. Of course, about 0 people here want to drive over to random.org's HQ and hear atmospheric noise for days on end, so we can only trust that it's random. And so far, due to the LLN (Law of Large Numbers), it has been shown to most likely be random.

Just_essence wrote:Well, there is a difference between what most players consider random and what the physics of the world considers random (Otherwise known as actually random, regardless of whether the randomness has been an asshole to anyone):Physics/Math/Mother Nature/The Universe considers something to be truly random when all things have an equal chance of being selected in the process. As long as that condition is fulfilled, it doesn't give a metric f**kton about what the actual results are. It only cares whether the process is random or not, and so, if you get sixty-two 1's in a row, as long as the process is random, those results are "random".However, players like you or I cannot understand, nor observe, nor visualize the process of choosing a random number. Therefore, we can only base our observations on the results we get, and we must recognize that what we use to determine randomness and what true randomness is are not the same two things, and, at times, what seems to not be random is actually random, however counter-intuitive. If we get the aforementioned sixty-two 1's in a row, we cannot see the process of choosing those sixty-two 1's, and therefore don't know if it's random or not, and it could be and could be not, but we can't just say "It's rigged" or "There may exist a bias somewhere in the process" until we observe the process for ourselves. Of course, about 0 people here want to drive over to random.org's HQ and hear atmospheric noise for days on end, so we can only trust that it's random. And so far, due to the LLN (Law of Large Numbers), it has been shown to most likely be random.

Beautifully written and has the added benefit of raising reasonable doubt. You're welcome anytime, JE.

DoomYoshi wrote:The thing about randomness is that it is defined by unpredictabilty. Let's assume there is an infinite, and random, stream of dice. In that infinite random stream, there is contained an infinite stream of 1s. So it is entirely possible to roll nothing but 1s for your entire life.

Proof: If the longest stream of 1s is only 564 1s long, then we know that the 565th roll is not a 1, and it is therefore not random.

Indeed, its' possible. But what's more likely: rolling 1's for the rest of your life in a random situation or the existence of a rigged or not-random system?

I believe the question depends entirely if you "believe" in randomness. If you do believe in randomness, then the possibility of such a scenario appearing in a sort of nested randomness could be entirely possible. Maybe even probable.

It's so weird I can't even tell if it is a conspiracy theory

Not really

The thing is that any finite stream in an infinite stream has a 0% chance of being drawn. So there is actually no chance you roll 1s for the rest of your life. There is no chance you roll anything either, which is one of the problems of dealing with infinite, random numbers.

I believe, however, that the "rolling 1's for the rest of your life" referred to a finite section inside an infinite stream, not a finite stream inside an infinite stream, which is completely possible.